Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 761

control, N = 381

treatment, N = 381

p-value2

age

76

50.81 ± 12.58 (25 - 74)

50.77 ± 13.49 (25 - 74)

50.85 ± 11.77 (31 - 72)

0.978

gender

76

0.803

f

53 (70%)

26 (68%)

27 (71%)

m

23 (30%)

12 (32%)

11 (29%)

occupation

76

0.917

day_training

2 (2.6%)

2 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

full_time

8 (11%)

4 (11%)

4 (11%)

homemaker

6 (7.9%)

3 (7.9%)

3 (7.9%)

other

2 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.3%)

part_time

14 (18%)

7 (18%)

7 (18%)

retired

15 (20%)

7 (18%)

8 (21%)

self_employ

4 (5.3%)

2 (5.3%)

2 (5.3%)

student

1 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.6%)

t_and_e

2 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

unemploy

22 (29%)

12 (32%)

10 (26%)

marital

76

0.800

cohabitation

1 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.6%)

divore

9 (12%)

6 (16%)

3 (7.9%)

married

17 (22%)

8 (21%)

9 (24%)

none

43 (57%)

21 (55%)

22 (58%)

seperation

3 (3.9%)

2 (5.3%)

1 (2.6%)

widow

3 (3.9%)

1 (2.6%)

2 (5.3%)

edu

76

0.931

bachelor

23 (30%)

9 (24%)

14 (37%)

diploma

13 (17%)

8 (21%)

5 (13%)

hd_ad

3 (3.9%)

2 (5.3%)

1 (2.6%)

postgraduate

6 (7.9%)

3 (7.9%)

3 (7.9%)

primary

5 (6.6%)

2 (5.3%)

3 (7.9%)

secondary_1_3

9 (12%)

5 (13%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (20%)

8 (21%)

7 (18%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

fam_income

76

0.909

10001_12000

4 (5.3%)

1 (2.6%)

3 (7.9%)

12001_14000

4 (5.3%)

2 (5.3%)

2 (5.3%)

14001_16000

5 (6.6%)

2 (5.3%)

3 (7.9%)

16001_18000

2 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

1 (2.6%)

18001_20000

4 (5.3%)

3 (7.9%)

1 (2.6%)

20001_above

13 (17%)

6 (16%)

7 (18%)

2001_4000

10 (13%)

7 (18%)

3 (7.9%)

4001_6000

10 (13%)

4 (11%)

6 (16%)

6001_8000

8 (11%)

5 (13%)

3 (7.9%)

8001_10000

7 (9.2%)

3 (7.9%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (12%)

4 (11%)

5 (13%)

medication

76

66 (87%)

34 (89%)

32 (84%)

0.497

onset_duration

76

15.54 ± 11.34 (0 - 56)

16.85 ± 12.63 (1 - 56)

14.23 ± 9.89 (0 - 35)

0.317

onset_age

76

35.27 ± 13.98 (14 - 64)

33.92 ± 13.32 (14 - 58)

36.62 ± 14.66 (15 - 64)

0.403

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 761

control, N = 381

treatment, N = 381

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

76

3.12 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

0.925

recovery_stage_b

76

17.97 ± 2.59 (9 - 23)

17.95 ± 2.62 (9 - 23)

18.00 ± 2.60 (13 - 23)

0.930

ras_confidence

76

30.33 ± 4.77 (19 - 43)

29.92 ± 4.14 (19 - 40)

30.74 ± 5.35 (20 - 43)

0.459

ras_willingness

76

12.13 ± 1.93 (7 - 15)

11.92 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)

12.34 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)

0.346

ras_goal

76

17.58 ± 2.96 (12 - 24)

17.53 ± 2.90 (12 - 24)

17.63 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)

0.878

ras_reliance

76

13.13 ± 2.79 (8 - 20)

12.97 ± 2.54 (8 - 18)

13.29 ± 3.04 (8 - 20)

0.625

ras_domination

76

9.99 ± 2.29 (3 - 15)

10.55 ± 2.05 (6 - 15)

9.42 ± 2.40 (3 - 14)

0.030

symptom

76

30.12 ± 9.67 (14 - 56)

31.13 ± 9.49 (14 - 52)

29.11 ± 9.87 (15 - 56)

0.365

slof_work

76

22.92 ± 4.91 (10 - 30)

22.74 ± 4.39 (15 - 30)

23.11 ± 5.44 (10 - 30)

0.746

slof_relationship

76

25.79 ± 6.03 (11 - 35)

25.32 ± 6.21 (13 - 35)

26.26 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)

0.497

satisfaction

76

20.70 ± 6.75 (5 - 32)

19.16 ± 6.36 (5 - 29)

22.24 ± 6.86 (5 - 32)

0.046

mhc_emotional

76

11.13 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.61 ± 3.42 (3 - 17)

11.66 ± 4.17 (4 - 18)

0.233

mhc_social

76

14.91 ± 5.45 (6 - 30)

15.08 ± 5.43 (7 - 30)

14.74 ± 5.53 (6 - 26)

0.786

mhc_psychological

76

22.29 ± 6.00 (6 - 36)

21.82 ± 5.63 (10 - 36)

22.76 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

0.495

resilisnce

76

16.49 ± 4.55 (6 - 27)

16.24 ± 4.36 (6 - 24)

16.74 ± 4.79 (7 - 27)

0.635

social_provision

76

13.74 ± 2.94 (5 - 20)

13.32 ± 2.46 (8 - 20)

14.16 ± 3.32 (5 - 20)

0.214

els_value_living

76

17.24 ± 2.92 (5 - 25)

16.68 ± 2.31 (12 - 22)

17.79 ± 3.35 (5 - 25)

0.099

els_life_fulfill

76

12.78 ± 3.29 (4 - 20)

11.76 ± 3.01 (5 - 17)

13.79 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

0.006

els

76

30.01 ± 5.57 (9 - 45)

28.45 ± 4.38 (20 - 36)

31.58 ± 6.22 (9 - 45)

0.013

social_connect

76

27.11 ± 9.34 (8 - 48)

27.92 ± 8.20 (8 - 45)

26.29 ± 10.41 (8 - 48)

0.450

shs_agency

76

14.47 ± 4.89 (3 - 24)

13.82 ± 4.46 (3 - 21)

15.13 ± 5.26 (3 - 24)

0.243

shs_pathway

76

16.54 ± 3.96 (4 - 24)

16.05 ± 3.77 (8 - 24)

17.03 ± 4.14 (4 - 23)

0.287

shs

76

31.01 ± 8.40 (7 - 47)

29.87 ± 7.87 (13 - 45)

32.16 ± 8.85 (7 - 47)

0.237

esteem

76

12.64 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.87 ± 1.53 (10 - 18)

12.42 ± 1.46 (10 - 16)

0.196

mlq_search

76

14.95 ± 3.27 (3 - 21)

14.87 ± 3.05 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

0.835

mlq_presence

76

13.53 ± 4.03 (3 - 21)

13.45 ± 3.46 (5 - 20)

13.61 ± 4.58 (3 - 21)

0.866

mlq

76

28.47 ± 6.49 (6 - 42)

28.32 ± 5.73 (12 - 40)

28.63 ± 7.24 (6 - 42)

0.834

empower

76

19.41 ± 4.15 (6 - 28)

19.05 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)

19.76 ± 4.61 (6 - 28)

0.459

ismi_resistance

76

14.67 ± 2.67 (5 - 20)

14.32 ± 2.18 (11 - 19)

15.03 ± 3.06 (5 - 20)

0.248

ismi_discrimation

76

11.26 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

12.16 ± 2.78 (5 - 18)

10.37 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)

0.012

sss_affective

76

9.91 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.34 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)

9.47 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)

0.317

sss_behavior

76

9.50 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

10.16 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

8.84 ± 3.91 (3 - 18)

0.150

sss_cognitive

76

8.20 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

8.53 ± 4.11 (3 - 18)

7.87 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

0.468

sss

76

27.61 ± 10.78 (9 - 54)

29.03 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)

26.18 ± 11.10 (9 - 54)

0.253

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.194

2.72, 3.49

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.026

0.275

-0.513, 0.565

0.924

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.165

0.285

-0.394, 0.723

0.566

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.150

0.403

-0.640, 0.939

0.712

Pseudo R square

0.011

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.430

17.1, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.053

0.608

-1.14, 1.24

0.931

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.386

0.595

-1.55, 0.780

0.519

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.923

0.841

-0.725, 2.57

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.811

28.3, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.816

1.147

-1.43, 3.06

0.479

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.308

0.811

-1.28, 1.90

0.706

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.474

1.147

-1.77, 2.72

0.681

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.321

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.421

0.454

-0.469, 1.31

0.356

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.632

0.318

-1.25, -0.010

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.534

0.449

-0.346, 1.41

0.240

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.504

16.5, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.105

0.713

-1.29, 1.50

0.883

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.927

0.549

-2.00, 0.149

0.098

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.63

0.776

0.112, 3.15

0.041

Pseudo R square

0.027

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.442

12.1, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.316

0.625

-0.909, 1.54

0.615

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.454

0.407

-0.345, 1.25

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.556

0.576

-0.574, 1.68

0.340

Pseudo R square

0.027

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.6

0.360

9.85, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.13

0.508

-2.13, -0.135

0.028

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.652

0.465

-1.56, 0.259

0.167

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.54

0.657

0.253, 2.83

0.023

Pseudo R square

0.045

symptom

(Intercept)

31.1

1.569

28.1, 34.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.03

2.218

-6.37, 2.32

0.364

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.076

1.166

-2.21, 2.36

0.948

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.718

1.649

-3.95, 2.51

0.666

Pseudo R square

0.014

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.802

21.2, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.368

1.134

-1.85, 2.59

0.746

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.733

0.621

-1.95, 0.484

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.466

0.878

-2.19, 1.25

0.598

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.3

0.967

23.4, 27.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.947

1.367

-1.73, 3.63

0.490

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.01

0.895

-2.76, 0.744

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.663

1.266

-1.82, 3.14

0.603

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.2

1.111

17.0, 21.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.08

1.571

0.000, 6.16

0.053

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

1.164

-1.52, 3.05

0.514

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

1.646

-4.50, 1.95

0.443

Pseudo R square

0.038

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.613

9.40, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.867

-0.647, 2.75

0.228

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.503

0.533

-0.541, 1.55

0.350

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

0.753

-2.68, 0.273

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.914

13.3, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.342

1.293

-2.88, 2.19

0.792

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.11

0.892

-0.643, 2.85

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.63

1.262

-4.10, 0.841

0.203

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

1.020

19.8, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.947

1.443

-1.88, 3.78

0.513

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.625

1.020

-1.37, 2.62

0.543

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.49

1.443

-4.31, 1.34

0.308

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.708

14.8, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.500

1.001

-1.46, 2.46

0.619

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.188

0.726

-1.24, 1.61

0.797

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.601

1.027

-1.41, 2.61

0.561

Pseudo R square

0.010

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.484

12.4, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.842

0.685

-0.501, 2.18

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.945

0.548

-2.02, 0.130

0.091

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.855

0.776

-0.665, 2.38

0.276

Pseudo R square

0.046

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.473

15.8, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.11

0.668

-0.205, 2.42

0.102

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.267

0.453

-0.621, 1.15

0.559

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.043

0.641

-1.30, 1.21

0.947

Pseudo R square

0.036

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.496

10.8, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.03

0.702

0.651, 3.40

0.005

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.928

0.481

-0.014, 1.87

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.936

0.680

-2.27, 0.397

0.176

Pseudo R square

0.081

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.869

26.7, 30.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.13

1.228

0.724, 5.54

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

0.766

-0.332, 2.67

0.134

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.940

1.083

-3.06, 1.18

0.390

Pseudo R square

0.070

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

1.520

24.9, 30.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.63

2.150

-5.85, 2.58

0.450

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.756

1.151

-1.50, 3.01

0.515

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

1.628

-4.47, 1.91

0.435

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.793

12.3, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.32

1.122

-0.882, 3.51

0.244

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.296

0.772

-1.22, 1.81

0.704

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.266

1.092

-1.87, 2.41

0.809

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.641

14.8, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.974

0.907

-0.803, 2.75

0.286

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.386

0.597

-0.784, 1.56

0.522

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.607

0.844

-2.26, 1.05

0.476

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.353

27.2, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.29

1.914

-1.46, 6.04

0.235

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.681

1.245

-1.76, 3.12

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.333

1.761

-3.78, 3.12

0.851

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.228

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.447

0.322

-1.08, 0.185

0.168

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.147

0.350

-0.539, 0.833

0.677

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.174

0.495

-0.797, 1.14

0.728

Pseudo R square

0.026

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.539

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.158

0.762

-1.34, 1.65

0.836

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.407

0.653

-1.69, 0.872

0.536

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.923

-1.49, 2.13

0.727

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.644

12.2, 14.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.158

0.910

-1.63, 1.94

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.090

0.729

-1.52, 1.34

0.902

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.053

1.031

-1.97, 2.07

0.959

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.3

1.072

26.2, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.316

1.515

-2.65, 3.29

0.835

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.498

1.240

-2.93, 1.93

0.689

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.373

1.754

-3.07, 3.81

0.833

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.658

17.8, 20.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.711

0.931

-1.11, 2.53

0.447

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.257

0.576

-1.39, 0.872

0.658

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.339

0.814

-1.93, 1.26

0.680

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.407

13.5, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.711

0.575

-0.417, 1.84

0.220

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.174

0.547

-0.898, 1.25

0.752

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.347

0.773

-1.86, 1.17

0.655

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.505

11.2, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.79

0.715

-3.19, -0.389

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.500

0.535

-1.55, 0.548

0.355

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.642

0.757

-0.840, 2.13

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.063

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.3

0.590

9.19, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.868

0.834

-2.50, 0.767

0.301

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.239

0.508

-0.757, 1.23

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.24

0.719

-2.64, 0.172

0.093

Pseudo R square

0.039

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.613

8.96, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.32

0.867

-3.02, 0.384

0.133

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.217

0.620

-1.43, 0.998

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.610

0.876

-2.33, 1.11

0.490

Pseudo R square

0.045

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.53

0.624

7.30, 9.75

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.658

0.883

-2.39, 1.07

0.458

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.513

0.026, 2.04

0.051

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.97

0.726

-3.39, -0.544

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.043

sss

(Intercept)

29.0

1.696

25.7, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.84

2.399

-7.54, 1.86

0.240

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

1.325

-1.49, 3.70

0.410

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.83

1.874

-7.51, -0.162

0.047

Pseudo R square

0.047

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.49], t(110) = 15.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.57], t(110) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.72], t(110) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.94], t(110) = 0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.10, 18.79], t(110) = 41.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.24], t(110) = 0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.78], t(110) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.57], t(110) = 1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.92 (95% CI [28.33, 31.51], t(110) = 36.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.43, 3.06], t(110) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.90], t(110) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.77, 2.72], t(110) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.29, 12.55], t(110) = 37.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.31], t(110) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.25, -9.60e-03], t(110) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.81e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.41], t(110) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.53 (95% CI [16.54, 18.51], t(110) = 34.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(110) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.00, 0.15], t(110) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.11, 3.15], t(110) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.04, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.11, 13.84], t(110) = 29.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.54], t(110) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(110) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.68], t(110) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.55 (95% CI [9.85, 11.26], t(110) = 29.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.13, -0.14], t(110) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.26], t(110) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.25, 2.83], t(110) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.69, 95% CI [0.11, 1.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.13 (95% CI [28.06, 34.21], t(110) = 19.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-6.37, 2.32], t(110) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.21, 2.36], t(110) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 7.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-3.95, 2.51], t(110) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.74 (95% CI [21.17, 24.31], t(110) = 28.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.59], t(110) = 0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.48], t(110) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.19, 1.25], t(110) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.32 (95% CI [23.42, 27.21], t(110) = 26.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.73, 3.63], t(110) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.74], t(110) = -1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.82, 3.14], t(110) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.16 (95% CI [16.98, 21.33], t(110) = 17.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.08, 95% CI [4.61e-04, 6.16], t(110) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [6.63e-05, 0.88])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.05], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.50, 1.95], t(110) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.40, 11.81], t(110) = 17.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.75], t(110) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.55], t(110) = 0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.27], t(110) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.08 (95% CI [13.29, 16.87], t(110) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.19], t(110) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.85], t(110) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-4.10, 0.84], t(110) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.82 (95% CI [19.82, 23.82], t(110) = 21.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.78], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.62], t(110) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-4.31, 1.34], t(110) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.24 (95% CI [14.85, 17.62], t(110) = 22.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.46], t(110) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.61], t(110) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.61], t(110) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.37, 14.27], t(110) = 27.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.18], t(110) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.13], t(110) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.38], t(110) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [15.76, 17.61], t(110) = 35.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.42], t(110) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.15], t(110) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.21], t(110) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [10.79, 12.74], t(110) = 23.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.65, 3.40], t(110) = 2.89, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.21, 1.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.87], t(110) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-4.48e-03, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.40], t(110) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.45 (95% CI [26.75, 30.15], t(110) = 32.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.13, 95% CI [0.72, 5.54], t(110) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [0.13, 1.00])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.67], t(110) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.06, 1.18], t(110) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.92 (95% CI [24.94, 30.90], t(110) = 18.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-5.85, 2.58], t(110) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.01], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.91], t(110) = -0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.82 (95% CI [12.26, 15.37], t(110) = 17.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.51], t(110) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.81], t(110) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.41], t(110) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.05 (95% CI [14.80, 17.31], t(110) = 25.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.75], t(110) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.56], t(110) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.05], t(110) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [27.22, 32.52], t(110) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.29, 95% CI [-1.46, 6.04], t(110) = 1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.12], t(110) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.78, 3.12], t(110) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.26) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.87 (95% CI [12.42, 13.32], t(110) = 56.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.18], t(110) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.83], t(110) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.14], t(110) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.87 (95% CI [13.81, 15.92], t(110) = 27.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.65], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.87], t(110) = -0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.13], t(110) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.66e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.45 (95% CI [12.19, 14.71], t(110) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.94], t(110) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.34], t(110) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.07], t(110) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.32 (95% CI [26.22, 30.42], t(110) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.29], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.93], t(110) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.81], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.05 (95% CI [17.76, 20.34], t(110) = 28.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.53], t(110) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.87], t(110) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.26], t(110) = -0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.52, 15.11], t(110) = 35.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.84], t(110) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(110) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.17], t(110) = -0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.16 (95% CI [11.17, 13.15], t(110) = 24.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.19, -0.39], t(110) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.55], t(110) = -0.94, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.13], t(110) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.34 (95% CI [9.19, 11.50], t(110) = 17.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.77], t(110) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.23], t(110) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.17], t(110) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.16 (95% CI [8.96, 11.36], t(110) = 16.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.02, 0.38], t(110) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.00], t(110) = -0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.11], t(110) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.53 (95% CI [7.30, 9.75], t(110) = 13.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.07], t(110) = -0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.04], t(110) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [6.67e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-3.39, -0.54], t(110) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.03 (95% CI [25.70, 32.35], t(110) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-7.54, 1.86], t(110) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.49, 3.70], t(110) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.83, 95% CI [-7.51, -0.16], t(110) = -2.05, p = 0.041; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

370.232

378.493

-182.116

364.232

recovery_stage_a

random

6

374.578

391.099

-181.289

362.578

1.654

3

0.647

recovery_stage_b

null

3

551.278

559.539

-272.639

545.278

recovery_stage_b

random

6

555.628

572.149

-271.814

543.628

1.650

3

0.648

ras_confidence

null

3

677.393

685.654

-335.697

671.393

ras_confidence

random

6

681.521

698.043

-334.761

669.521

1.872

3

0.599

ras_willingness

null

3

465.447

473.707

-229.723

459.447

ras_willingness

random

6

465.747

482.269

-226.874

453.747

5.699

3

0.127

ras_goal

null

3

576.503

584.764

-285.252

570.503

ras_goal

random

6

577.244

593.765

-282.622

565.244

5.259

3

0.154

ras_reliance

null

3

536.648

544.909

-265.324

530.648

ras_reliance

random

6

534.731

551.253

-261.366

522.731

7.917

3

0.048

ras_domination

null

3

511.740

520.001

-252.870

505.740

ras_domination

random

6

510.140

526.662

-249.070

498.140

7.599

3

0.055

symptom

null

3

807.820

816.080

-400.910

801.820

symptom

random

6

812.421

828.943

-400.211

800.421

1.399

3

0.706

slof_work

null

3

659.035

667.296

-326.517

653.035

slof_work

random

6

659.904

676.426

-323.952

647.904

5.131

3

0.162

slof_relationship

null

3

712.840

721.101

-353.420

706.840

slof_relationship

random

6

716.645

733.166

-352.322

704.645

2.196

3

0.533

satisfaction

null

3

755.729

763.990

-374.864

749.729

satisfaction

random

6

757.776

774.298

-372.888

745.776

3.953

3

0.267

mhc_emotional

null

3

603.664

611.924

-298.832

597.664

mhc_emotional

random

6

606.252

622.773

-297.126

594.252

3.412

3

0.332

mhc_social

null

3

703.854

712.115

-348.927

697.854

mhc_social

random

6

707.501

724.023

-347.751

695.501

2.353

3

0.502

mhc_psychological

null

3

730.024

738.284

-362.012

724.024

mhc_psychological

random

6

734.749

751.271

-361.375

722.749

1.274

3

0.735

resilisnce

null

3

647.575

655.836

-320.787

641.575

resilisnce

random

6

651.785

668.307

-319.893

639.785

1.790

3

0.617

social_provision

null

3

570.556

578.817

-282.278

564.556

social_provision

random

6

570.688

587.210

-279.344

558.688

5.868

3

0.118

els_value_living

null

3

550.667

558.928

-272.333

544.667

els_value_living

random

6

553.127

569.649

-270.564

541.127

3.540

3

0.316

els_life_fulfill

null

3

569.678

577.938

-281.839

563.678

els_life_fulfill

random

6

565.265

581.786

-276.632

553.265

10.413

3

0.015

els

null

3

690.359

698.620

-342.180

684.359

els

random

6

688.153

704.674

-338.076

676.153

8.206

3

0.042

social_connect

null

3

802.174

810.435

-398.087

796.174

social_connect

random

6

806.598

823.120

-397.299

794.598

1.575

3

0.665

shs_agency

null

3

670.760

679.021

-332.380

664.760

shs_agency

random

6

674.364

690.885

-331.182

662.364

2.396

3

0.494

shs_pathway

null

3

617.199

625.460

-305.600

611.199

shs_pathway

random

6

621.758

638.280

-304.879

609.758

1.441

3

0.696

shs

null

3

790.041

798.302

-392.020

784.041

shs

random

6

794.211

810.733

-391.106

782.211

1.830

3

0.609

esteem

null

3

410.650

418.911

-202.325

404.650

esteem

random

6

413.635

430.157

-200.818

401.635

3.015

3

0.389

mlq_search

null

3

594.507

602.768

-294.254

588.507

mlq_search

random

6

599.955

616.477

-293.978

587.955

0.552

3

0.907

mlq_presence

null

3

630.719

638.980

-312.360

624.719

mlq_presence

random

6

636.657

653.179

-312.329

624.657

0.062

3

0.996

mlq

null

3

750.632

758.893

-372.316

744.632

mlq

random

6

756.360

772.881

-372.180

744.360

0.272

3

0.965

empower

null

3

618.995

627.256

-306.498

612.995

empower

random

6

623.211

639.733

-305.606

611.211

1.784

3

0.618

ismi_resistance

null

3

536.732

544.993

-265.366

530.732

ismi_resistance

random

6

541.164

557.685

-264.582

529.164

1.568

3

0.667

ismi_discrimation

null

3

576.307

584.567

-285.153

570.307

ismi_discrimation

random

6

575.815

592.336

-281.907

563.815

6.492

3

0.090

sss_affective

null

3

597.027

605.288

-295.514

591.027

sss_affective

random

6

596.677

613.199

-292.339

584.677

6.350

3

0.096

sss_behavior

null

3

616.597

624.858

-305.299

610.597

sss_behavior

random

6

617.430

633.952

-302.715

605.430

5.167

3

0.160

sss_cognitive

null

3

609.090

617.350

-301.545

603.090

sss_cognitive

random

6

606.275

622.796

-297.137

594.275

8.815

3

0.032

sss

null

3

836.044

844.305

-415.022

830.044

sss

random

6

834.374

850.896

-411.187

822.374

7.670

3

0.053

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

38

3.11 ± 1.20

38

3.13 ± 1.20

0.924

-0.027

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.18

-0.167

20

3.45 ± 1.18

-0.320

0.638

-0.179

recovery_stage_b

1st

38

17.95 ± 2.65

38

18.00 ± 2.65

0.931

-0.026

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.56 ± 2.56

0.190

20

18.54 ± 2.56

-0.265

0.231

-0.482

ras_confidence

1st

38

29.92 ± 5.00

38

30.74 ± 5.00

0.479

-0.307

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.23 ± 4.36

-0.116

20

31.52 ± 4.36

-0.295

0.352

-0.486

ras_willingness

1st

38

11.92 ± 1.98

38

12.34 ± 1.98

0.356

-0.405

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.29 ± 1.72

0.608

20

12.24 ± 1.72

0.094

0.082

-0.920

ras_goal

1st

38

17.53 ± 3.11

38

17.63 ± 3.11

0.883

-0.058

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.60 ± 2.78

0.512

20

18.34 ± 2.78

-0.390

0.050

-0.960

ras_reliance

1st

38

12.97 ± 2.72

38

13.29 ± 2.72

0.615

-0.238

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.32

-0.342

20

14.30 ± 2.32

-0.761

0.238

-0.657

ras_domination

1st

38

10.55 ± 2.22

38

9.42 ± 2.22

0.028

0.723

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.90 ± 2.10

0.417

20

10.31 ± 2.10

-0.568

0.538

-0.262

symptom

1st

38

31.13 ± 9.67

38

29.11 ± 9.67

0.364

0.540

symptom

2nd

20

31.21 ± 7.85

-0.020

20

28.46 ± 7.85

0.171

0.272

0.731

slof_work

1st

38

22.74 ± 4.94

38

23.11 ± 4.94

0.746

-0.184

slof_work

2nd

20

22.00 ± 4.05

0.366

20

21.91 ± 4.05

0.599

0.939

0.049

slof_relationship

1st

38

25.32 ± 5.96

38

26.26 ± 5.96

0.490

-0.325

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.31 ± 5.09

0.347

20

25.92 ± 5.09

0.119

0.319

-0.553

satisfaction

1st

38

19.16 ± 6.85

38

22.24 ± 6.85

0.053

-0.805

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.92 ± 6.05

-0.200

20

21.73 ± 6.05

0.133

0.348

-0.472

mhc_emotional

1st

38

10.61 ± 3.78

38

11.66 ± 3.78

0.228

-0.609

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.11 ± 3.18

-0.291

20

10.96 ± 3.18

0.405

0.881

0.087

mhc_social

1st

38

15.08 ± 5.63

38

14.74 ± 5.63

0.792

0.117

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.18 ± 4.88

-0.379

20

14.21 ± 4.88

0.180

0.204

0.677

mhc_psychological

1st

38

21.82 ± 6.29

38

22.76 ± 6.29

0.513

-0.284

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.44 ± 5.49

-0.187

20

21.90 ± 5.49

0.258

0.757

0.161

resilisnce

1st

38

16.24 ± 4.36

38

16.74 ± 4.36

0.619

-0.210

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.42 ± 3.83

-0.079

20

17.53 ± 3.83

-0.331

0.366

-0.462

social_provision

1st

38

13.32 ± 2.99

38

14.16 ± 2.99

0.222

-0.464

social_provision

2nd

20

12.37 ± 2.70

0.521

20

14.07 ± 2.70

0.050

0.050

-0.935

els_value_living

1st

38

16.68 ± 2.91

38

17.79 ± 2.91

0.102

-0.748

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.95 ± 2.51

-0.181

20

18.01 ± 2.51

-0.151

0.184

-0.718

els_life_fulfill

1st

38

11.76 ± 3.06

38

13.79 ± 3.06

0.005

-1.290

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.69 ± 2.65

-0.591

20

13.78 ± 2.65

0.005

0.195

-0.694

els

1st

38

28.45 ± 5.35

38

31.58 ± 5.35

0.013

-1.260

els

2nd

20

29.62 ± 4.52

-0.470

20

31.81 ± 4.52

-0.092

0.128

-0.882

social_connect

1st

38

27.92 ± 9.37

38

26.29 ± 9.37

0.450

0.440

social_connect

2nd

20

28.68 ± 7.64

-0.204

20

25.76 ± 7.64

0.142

0.231

0.786

shs_agency

1st

38

13.82 ± 4.89

38

15.13 ± 4.89

0.244

-0.522

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.11 ± 4.23

-0.117

20

15.69 ± 4.23

-0.223

0.240

-0.627

shs_pathway

1st

38

16.05 ± 3.95

38

17.03 ± 3.95

0.286

-0.501

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.44 ± 3.38

-0.198

20

16.80 ± 3.38

0.114

0.732

-0.188

shs

1st

38

29.87 ± 8.34

38

32.16 ± 8.34

0.235

-0.565

shs

2nd

20

30.55 ± 7.11

-0.168

20

32.51 ± 7.11

-0.086

0.386

-0.483

esteem

1st

38

12.87 ± 1.41

38

12.42 ± 1.41

0.168

0.366

esteem

2nd

20

13.02 ± 1.40

-0.120

20

12.74 ± 1.40

-0.263

0.538

0.224

mlq_search

1st

38

14.87 ± 3.32

38

15.03 ± 3.32

0.836

-0.072

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.46 ± 3.07

0.187

20

14.94 ± 3.07

0.038

0.621

-0.221

mlq_presence

1st

38

13.45 ± 3.97

38

13.61 ± 3.97

0.863

-0.065

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.36 ± 3.59

0.037

20

13.57 ± 3.59

0.015

0.853

-0.088

mlq

1st

38

28.32 ± 6.61

38

28.63 ± 6.61

0.835

-0.077

mlq

2nd

20

27.82 ± 6.02

0.121

20

28.51 ± 6.02

0.031

0.718

-0.167

empower

1st

38

19.05 ± 4.06

38

19.76 ± 4.06

0.447

-0.380

empower

2nd

20

18.80 ± 3.42

0.137

20

19.17 ± 3.42

0.319

0.731

-0.199

ismi_resistance

1st

38

14.32 ± 2.51

38

15.03 ± 2.51

0.220

-0.383

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.40

-0.094

20

14.85 ± 2.40

0.094

0.633

-0.196

ismi_discrimation

1st

38

12.16 ± 3.12

38

10.37 ± 3.12

0.014

1.017

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.66 ± 2.76

0.284

20

10.51 ± 2.76

-0.081

0.192

0.652

sss_affective

1st

38

10.34 ± 3.64

38

9.47 ± 3.64

0.301

0.527

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.58 ± 3.05

-0.145

20

8.48 ± 3.05

0.605

0.031

1.277

sss_behavior

1st

38

10.16 ± 3.78

38

8.84 ± 3.78

0.133

0.648

sss_behavior

2nd

20

9.94 ± 3.31

0.107

20

8.02 ± 3.31

0.407

0.068

0.949

sss_cognitive

1st

38

8.53 ± 3.85

38

7.87 ± 3.85

0.458

0.396

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.56 ± 3.19

-0.621

20

6.93 ± 3.19

0.563

0.011

1.581

sss

1st

38

29.03 ± 10.46

38

26.18 ± 10.46

0.240

0.665

sss

2nd

20

30.13 ± 8.58

-0.258

20

23.45 ± 8.58

0.639

0.015

1.562

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(104.64) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.57)

2st

t(111.23) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(100.80) = 0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.26)

2st

t(111.18) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.58)

ras_confidence

1st

t(86.13) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.10)

2st

t(111.63) = 0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.44 to 4.02)

ras_willingness

1st

t(85.83) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.32)

2st

t(111.53) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.03)

ras_goal

1st

t(88.90) = 0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.52)

2st

t(112.00) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.00 to 3.48)

ras_reliance

1st

t(84.04) = 0.51, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.56)

2st

t(110.61) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.33)

ras_domination

1st

t(96.72) = -2.23, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.14 to -0.12)

2st

t(111.39) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.72)

symptom

1st

t(80.16) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.44 to 2.39)

2st

t(105.03) = -1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-7.67 to 2.18)

slof_work

1st

t(80.74) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.63)

2st

t(106.33) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.44)

slof_relationship

1st

t(84.12) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.67)

2st

t(110.67) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.58 to 4.80)

satisfaction

1st

t(87.58) = 1.96, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.04 to 6.20)

2st

t(111.91) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.99 to 5.60)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(82.75) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.78)

2st

t(109.44) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.14 to 1.84)

mhc_social

1st

t(85.47) = -0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.23)

2st

t(111.40) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.03 to 1.09)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(86.14) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.82)

2st

t(111.63) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.90)

resilisnce

1st

t(86.91) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.49)

2st

t(111.81) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.30 to 3.50)

social_provision

1st

t(90.38) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.20)

2st

t(111.96) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.00 to 3.39)

els_value_living

1st

t(85.00) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.43)

2st

t(111.18) = 1.34, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(85.27) = 2.89, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.29, 95% CI (0.63 to 3.42)

2st

t(111.31) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.75)

els

1st

t(83.05) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.57)

2st

t(109.76) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.64 to 5.02)

social_connect

1st

t(80.41) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-5.91 to 2.65)

2st

t(105.62) = -1.21, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.71 to 1.88)

shs_agency

1st

t(85.40) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.55)

2st

t(111.37) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.07 to 4.23)

shs_pathway

1st

t(84.27) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.78)

2st

t(110.77) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.48)

shs

1st

t(83.98) = 1.20, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.52 to 6.10)

2st

t(110.57) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.50 to 6.41)

esteem

1st

t(107.71) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.19)

2st

t(111.45) = -0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.60)

mlq_search

1st

t(93.37) = 0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.67)

2st

t(111.71) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.41)

mlq_presence

1st

t(90.39) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.97)

2st

t(111.96) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.46)

mlq

1st

t(91.30) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.33)

2st

t(111.90) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-3.09 to 4.46)

empower

1st

t(82.89) = 0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.56)

2st

t(109.59) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.51)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(99.03) = 1.24, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.85)

2st

t(111.24) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(87.92) = -2.50, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.21 to -0.37)

2st

t(111.95) = -1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.58)

sss_affective

1st

t(82.58) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.53 to 0.79)

2st

t(109.24) = -2.18, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.02 to -0.19)

sss_behavior

1st

t(86.45) = -1.52, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.41)

2st

t(111.71) = -1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-4.00 to 0.15)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(81.71) = -0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.10)

2st

t(108.07) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.58, 95% CI (-4.63 to -0.62)

sss

1st

t(80.87) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.62 to 1.93)

2st

t(106.59) = -2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.30)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.95) = 1.09, p = 0.558, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(52.17) = 0.90, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.74)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.89) = 0.96, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.42)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.73) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.55)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(45.30) = 1.28, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.82)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.84) = 2.47, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.83)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.62) = 1.90, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.83)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.94) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.00 to 1.72)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.23) = -1.93, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.06)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.88) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.16 to 1.47)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.62) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.87 to 1.85)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.20) = -1.31, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.38)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.55) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.28)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.89) = -0.84, p = 0.810, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.93 to 1.20)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.28) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.26)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(46.08) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.02)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.45) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.97)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.35) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.78)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(41.06) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.80)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.52) = 0.72, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.95) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.99)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.81) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(57.66) = 0.91, p = 0.735, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.03)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.70) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(46.09) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.44)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.57) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.39)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.27) = -1.03, p = 0.618, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.57)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(51.03) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.93)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.80) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.23)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(42.12) = -1.96, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.03)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(44.05) = -1.33, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.43)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.70) = -1.82, p = 0.153, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.29) = -2.06, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.41 to -0.05)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.95) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(52.17) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.82)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.89) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.95)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.73) = -1.98, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(45.30) = -1.68, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.18)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.84) = 1.11, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.62) = -1.39, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.29)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.94) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.44)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.23) = -1.18, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.52)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.88) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.62) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.20) = 0.94, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.58)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.55) = 1.23, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.91)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.89) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.69)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.28) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.66)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(46.08) = -1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.17)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.45) = 1.92, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.90)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.35) = 1.52, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.72)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(41.06) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.52) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.95) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.59)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.81) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.20)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(57.66) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.85)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.70) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(46.09) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.39)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.57) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.01 to 2.01)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.27) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.91)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(51.03) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.80) = -0.93, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.58)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(42.12) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.27)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(44.05) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.04)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.70) = 2.00, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.29) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.79)

Plot

Clinical significance